M ampersand D Duck Read

[Elisabeth Romberg]

Like you said Thomas, much is made of their differences! Like them being Northern and Southern (English). Very different cultures, and knowingly so. Jokingly so. Caricaturish? London like a country to itself (which The City of London actually is), and The North: mores and dales, fairs and faries, old magic…! Only because I once lived in North Yorkshire near Scarborough (where Dixon is from?), was I able to grasp Dixons Northern accent and character when I read the book in 99(?) So, because being Norwegian (my English sadly deteriorating), I always wondered: TP must have stayed in England over a longer period of time doing research to have got under the skin/language/culture/dress/history whatever, but most importantly the sense of humor a language or an accent contains? …of the two very different cultures the two characters embodies? 
Uhm, …like Yin&Yang? 
I’d like to add that to me M&D is not only an "American novel" but also an «English» one, which in some way or another the cover coveys, but this is a personal association of course.

Also my first association to the name of this thread was 'Anders And' (Donald Duck in Danish). ‘And' meaning 'duck' in Scandinavian languages. Then I thought it said ampersand, as in an amper (mad) duck. All this was very fitting I thought, very clever, and way over my head of course, but then I realised what you were Actually discussing...

A bit of a ramble, quite embarrassing, but I might as well get stuck in, or else I get too worried about saying something good to the point where I don't say anything.

Cheers for all your input so far, and we haven’t even started yet! Brilliant!
Elisabeth



> 4. jan. 2015 kl. 19.35 skrev Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>:
> 
> yeah, their own Almost-Trinity (to blaspheme from TRP's growing-up
> religion). They are One,
> in very important American ways, yes?
> 
> A--and, to save another posting, the book is also a buddy book, a
> buddy 'movie', too, right?
> From Don Quixote thru Kerouac (and beyond), we got books full of duos.
> Having meaningful
> adventures.
> 
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 1:06 PM, M Thomas Stevenson
> <m.thomas.stevenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> A-and the way I read it though was how the ampersand originated formerly from "and per se and", when & was tagged-on at the end of the alphabet, becoming a blurred andperseand, anpersand, etc., so: borders of words becoming blurred, Mason & Dixon no longer singular entities with individuated selves, but like "Smith's & Sons", a body, a corpus. Much is made of their differences so far, as I've seen.
>> 
>> On 4 January 2015, at 16:15, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Here's something to think on (maybe): the Ampersand symbol has been largely lost
>> to history as the future has unfolded from 1789,  in title use, book
>> cataloguing, title copyrighting, etc.
>> 
>> Gone. Not yet but soon a Dodo?
>> 
>> A small but meaningful loss in History? Another one?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 11:03 AM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> For me, aesthetics. Pure and simple. Sometimes an ampersand is just an
>>>> ampersand. Unsatisfying to you close readers, but there you have it.
>>> 
>>> The symbol is pretty. And it suggests a story set long ago if not so
>>> very far away.
>>> So a good argument for the aesthetic use of the symbol.
>>> 
>>> With the handheld communication device, now a tool in the hands of our
>>> young as they learn to write, the symbol is in common use when
>>> texting. Symbols, letters of alphabets and so forth do not correspond
>>> with sounds. Nor would we want this to be the case. They approximate
>>> the mental lexicon of phonemes and with other stuff, call this other
>>> stuff " rules", to avoid linguistic jargon, and given a particular
>>> context, the writer provides a symbolic framework upon with the reader
>>> builds meaning. So, what you made up here (below) is wrong.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Here, I will make something up.
>>>> When reading there is a certain tendency to translate the text into
>>>> language. In a way,  our brains hear the words that we are reading. You see
>>>> 'and' and hear 'and'. Which might indicate a definite distinction between
>>>> the linked terms. But with a symbol, you first have to translate the symbol
>>>> into a word, then hear it. I would suggest that the ampersand is heard more
>>>> of an 'n' than a 'and'. This elision blurs the distinction between the two
>>>> terms. Mark hinted at that by suggesting that Melanie and Jackson are two
>>>> separate entities. The 'and' in the dedication. If, as I suggest, the
>>>> ampersand is heard as 'n', it connects the terms in a more intimate way, not
>>>> so distinct.
>>>> To summarize, Mason and Dixon are two distinct individuals, while Mason &
>>>> Dixon are much closer and linked in more permanent way. There is not one
>>>> without the other.
>>>> Hey, there is a graduate thesis here. "The Ampersand and the Dissolution of
>>>> Interpersonal Boundaries in the Writings of TRP". Or not.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Mike
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/4/2015 6:30 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Mike, any notions re 'What gives?'
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Mike <beider19 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Also it is not "For Melanie & For Jackson".
>>>> What gives?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/4/2015 4:44 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> What meaningful differences exist if not "Mason and Dixon"?
>>>> 
>>>> Dedication: " For Melanie and for Jackson" ...not " for Melanie and
>>>> Jackson".....Pynchon's precision singles each out, the separate individuals
>>>> that they are.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> *********************************
>>>>           Just for fun
>>>> http://beider19.home.comcast.net
>>>> *********************************
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l